Re: SM update status...

On 09/12/2016 02:17, David H. Durgee wrote: > Mason83 wrote: >> On 07/12/2016 23:12, David H. Durgee wrote: >>> Mason83 wrote: On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote: > I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the > ubuntuzilla repository. I have a

Re: no plugins with current SM version

Plugin support is discontined in Gecko / Firefox 52 which is the base of SeaMonkey. This was alrweady the case with 64 bit Windows versions for some time. Only Flash will work. All other plugings will no longer work. Nothing we / SeaMonkey devs can do about it. Binary Add-ons will stop

Re: no plugins with current SM version

On 12/08/2016 06:24 PM, Piscium wrote: > On 9 December 2016 at 01:31, NoOp wrote: > >>> # ls /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ >>> gecko-mediaplayer-dvx.so gecko-mediaplayer-rm.so >>> gecko-mediaplayer-wmp.so libjavaplugin.so >>> gecko-mediaplayer-qt.so

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:03:36 -0800, David E. Ross wrote: On 12/8/2016 3:42 PM, Ralph Fox wrote: On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:06:24 +, Richmond wrote: Ant writes: Smiley Fixer looks like a likely candidate. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/smiley-fixer/

Re: no plugins with current SM version

On 9 December 2016 at 01:31, NoOp wrote: >> # ls /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ >> gecko-mediaplayer-dvx.so gecko-mediaplayer-rm.so >> gecko-mediaplayer-wmp.so libjavaplugin.so >> gecko-mediaplayer-qt.so gecko-mediaplayer.so libflashplayer.so >> > > Mine are

Re: no plugins with current SM version

On 12/08/2016 04:51 PM, Piscium wrote: > On 9 December 2016 at 00:22, NoOp wrote: > >> Could be that your pluginreg.dat file is corrupted. Close SeaMonkey and >> goto >> ~/.mozilla/seamonkey/ >> and rename pluginreg.dat to pluginreg.dat_bak >> Restart SeaMonkey and

Re: SM update status...

Mason83 wrote: On 07/12/2016 23:12, David H. Durgee wrote: Mason83 wrote: On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote: I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the ubuntuzilla repository. I have a local repository set up on my system and could install your unofficial

Re: no plugins with current SM version

On 9 December 2016 at 00:22, NoOp wrote: > Could be that your pluginreg.dat file is corrupted. Close SeaMonkey and > goto > ~/.mozilla/seamonkey/ > and rename pluginreg.dat to pluginreg.dat_bak > Restart SeaMonkey and see if your plugins are back. I am writing this

Re: no plugins with current SM version

On 12/08/2016 03:33 PM, Piscium wrote: > On 8 December 2016 at 23:04, Piscium wrote: > >> On Fedora amd64 I tried a Alkala build and the SM Aurora build >> available in the SM website and I had the same problem in both: all >> the plugins that I have installed with the Fedora

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

On 12/8/2016 3:42 PM, Ralph Fox wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:06:24 +, Richmond wrote: >> Ant writes: Smiley Fixer looks like a likely candidate. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/smiley-fixer/ >>> Thanks, but it didn't work for me. I tried >>>

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:06:24 +, Richmond wrote: Ant writes: Smiley Fixer looks like a likely candidate. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/smiley-fixer/ Thanks, but it didn't work

Re: no plugins with current SM version

On 8 December 2016 at 23:04, Piscium wrote: > On Fedora amd64 I tried a Alkala build and the SM Aurora build > available in the SM website and I had the same problem in both: all > the plugins that I have installed with the Fedora package manager > (Gecko, Flash, IcedTea)

no plugins with current SM version

On Fedora amd64 I tried a Alkala build and the SM Aurora build available in the SM website and I had the same problem in both: all the plugins that I have installed with the Fedora package manager (Gecko, Flash, IcedTea) don't appear (about:plugins is empty), also all the dictionaries are gone

Re: 12/7/2016 Cox Email Servers on ?

On 12/8/2016 10:03 AM, sean wrote: > On 12/07/2016 11:31 PM, sean wrote: >> sean wrote: >>> Anybody else west of the Mississippi River having trouble with cox >>> pop3 or imap e'mail servers? >>> >>> I keep getting errors... will post it specifically next time it comes >>> up, something about

Re: New 2.46 Windows release candidates

On 12/8/2016 10:57 AM, EE wrote: > Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: >> Ewong just built new Windows 2.46 en-US and de release candidates with >> the 0-day fix incorporated: >> >> https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.46-candidates/build6/unsigned/ >> >> >> Chatzilla, DOMi and Lightning

Re: New 2.46 Windows release candidates

On 08/12/2016 13:09, TCW wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:14:55 +0800, Edmund Wong wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Fwiw.. please *do* note that those 2.46 candidate builds are just >> test builds. While it does have the sec fix, it isn't the official >> candidate until I start spinning build 7. >> >> Edmund

Re: akalla version 2.46 issues

On 08/12/2016 20:11, EE wrote: > Mr. Ed wrote: >> On 12/07/16 3:32 PM, Mason83 wrote: >>> On 07/12/2016 21:16, Mr. Ed wrote: >>> On 11/20/16 2:44 PM, Mason83 wrote: > 1) I was using the StartPage search engine for searches done directly > in the location bar. It now goes to

Re: akalla version 2.46 issues

Mr. Ed wrote: On 12/07/16 3:32 PM, Mason83 wrote: On 07/12/2016 21:16, Mr. Ed wrote: On 11/20/16 2:44 PM, Mason83 wrote: 1) I was using the StartPage search engine for searches done directly in the location bar. It now goes to duckduckgo. That also happens in SM 2.47 (64 bit). Build

Re: New 2.46 Windows release candidates

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Ewong just built new Windows 2.46 en-US and de release candidates with the 0-day fix incorporated: https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.46-candidates/build6/unsigned/ Chatzilla, DOMi and Lightning are not in the package because the l10n bug is still

Re: 12/7/2016 Cox Email Servers on ?

On 12/8/2016 10:03 AM, sean wrote: > On 12/07/2016 11:31 PM, sean wrote: >> sean wrote: >>> Anybody else west of the Mississippi River having trouble with cox >>> pop3 or imap e'mail servers? >>> >>> I keep getting errors... will post it specifically next time it comes >>> up, something about

Re: 12/7/2016 Cox Email Servers on ?

On 12/07/2016 11:31 PM, sean wrote: sean wrote: Anybody else west of the Mississippi River having trouble with cox pop3 or imap e'mail servers? I keep getting errors... will post it specifically next time it comes up, something about too many requests... sean As of a little after 11pm

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Frank-Rainer Grahl writes: > Build needs to finish or it won't load. Run mach bootstrap from the mozilla > directory and follow the instructions for building Firefox Desktop. This will > try to pull in any missing deps. > > Also post your mozconfig but better in

Re: New 2.46 Windows release candidates

I tested the installers briefly this morning and they seem to be ok. FRG TCW wrote: On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:14:55 +0800, Edmund Wong wrote: Hi, Fwiw.. please *do* note that those 2.46 candidate builds are just test builds. While it does have the sec fix, it isn't the

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Build needs to finish or it won't load. Run mach bootstrap from the mozilla directory and follow the instructions for building Firefox Desktop. This will try to pull in any missing deps. Also post your mozconfig but better in mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey. FRG Richmond wrote: Frank-Rainer

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Frank-Rainer Grahl writes: > If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and > just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015 > Update 3. > > Full build will take around 3h to 5h on my Thinkpad X200s and 30 to 40 > minutes on my desktop. Both

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

Ant writes: >> >> Smiley Fixer looks like a likely candidate. >> >> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/smiley-fixer/ > > Thanks, but it didn't work for me. I tried > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/smiley-fixer/versions/ and > force an install

Re: New 2.46 Windows release candidates

Hi, Fwiw.. please *do* note that those 2.46 candidate builds are just test builds. While it does have the sec fix, it isn't the official candidate until I start spinning build 7. Edmund ___ support-seamonkey mailing list

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

On 12/8/2016 1:16 AM, Richmond wrote: Perhaps there is a Thunderbird add-on for this, as Richmond has replied. But the closest I could find was this Firefox add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-page-fixer/ Details The sender is using HTML to set the font to Wingdings for

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

On 12/8/2016 1:00 AM, Ralph Fox wrote: ... Is there something I need to show these emoticons (not emojis) correctly in SeaMonkey v2.40's e-mail client? Thank you in advance. :) [old school 1 line ASCII arts FTW :P] It is not an ASCII emoticon like ":)" is. It is a single character in the

Re: New 2.46 Windows release candidates

On 8/12/2016 7:59 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Ewong just built new Windows 2.46 en-US and de release candidates with the 0-day fix incorporated: https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.46-candidates/build6/unsigned/ Hmm!! One wonders why, on

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@xn--kba.invalid> writes: > Perhaps there is a Thunderbird add-on for this, as Richmond has > replied.  But the closest I could find was this Firefox add-on: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-page-fixer/ > > Details > The sender is using HTML to set the font

Re: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:56:23 -0800, Ant wrote: Subject: "J" instead of Outlook's happy face? Hello. Is there something I need to show these emoticons (not emojis) correctly in SeaMonkey v2.40's e-mail client? Thank you